Monroe County's army of despair: Nearly 25,000 live in poverty

Oct 13, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Pocono Record

The U.S. Census Bureau defined poverty in 2011 as a household income of about $22,891 for a family of four, depending on how many are under 18.

Comments
1 - 16 of 16 Comments Last updated Oct 15, 2012

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 14, 2012
 
Where has all the affordable housing gone?

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 14, 2012
 
Foreclosure.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 14, 2012
 
Jeff Phillips wrote:
Foreclosure.
That housing wasn't affordable. Foreclosure would be rare if people bought what they could afford? But then there isthe school tax to contend with. Until the people rise up and storm Harrisburg no changes will be made.

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 14, 2012
 
Things sure have gone down hill since the current president got elected.

Oh for those heady days of prosperity when George Bush was still in office...and America had fewer homeless people.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 14, 2012
 
AunieEm2 wrote:
<quoted text>
That housing wasn't affordable. Foreclosure would be rare if people bought what they could afford? But then there isthe school tax to contend with. Until the people rise up and storm Harrisburg no changes will be made.
School tax, unemployment, underemployment, skyrocketing fuel and food prices, insurance premiums and co-pays. What WAS affordable is no longer.

I guess it could be said that those who have been foreclosed upon 'overbought'. But there are other factors to consider. Who expected to lose income simply by staying the same?

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

But the government says that oil and food don't count toward cost of living.

Never mind those increases, the imaginary salary increase will cover that.

Laughable.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 14, 2012
 
Under Obama, American families have LOST $4,200 in annual income.

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 14, 2012
 
And gained thousands in government debt.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 14, 2012
 
Jeff Phillips wrote:
Under Obama, American families have LOST $4,200 in annual income.
So shortsighted to blame Obama for all this. This all collapsed before he was even sworn in, but it is more convenient to just blame the sitting President. Just glad that most Americans see though this thinly veiled attempt to gain back the white house. Romney is certainly NOT the answer to this sitation Jeff. He can't wait to do away with the mortgage interest deducion to help finance tax cuts for the wealthy ,but shhhh, don't say anything until after the electon.

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 14, 2012
 
slush wrote:
<quoted text>
So shortsighted to blame Obama for all this. This all collapsed before he was even sworn in, but it is more convenient to just blame the sitting President. Just glad that most Americans see though this thinly veiled attempt to gain back the white house. Romney is certainly NOT the answer to this sitation Jeff. He can't wait to do away with the mortgage interest deducion to help finance tax cuts for the wealthy ,but shhhh, don't say anything until after the electon.
Worth noting that Ronald Reagan didn't spend his entire first term blaming Carter.

Since: Sep 09

Stroudsburg PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

slush wrote:
<quoted text>So shortsighted to blame Obama for all this. This all collapsed before he was even sworn in, but it is more convenient to just blame the sitting President. Just glad that most Americans see though this thinly veiled attempt to gain back the white house. Romney is certainly NOT the answer to this sitation Jeff. He can't wait to do away with the mortgage interest deducion to help finance tax cuts for the wealthy ,but shhhh, don't say anything until after the electon.
You are sadly misinformed. Turn off chrissy matthews and rachel maddow and you might have time to learn facts.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 14, 2012
 
slush wrote:
<quoted text>
So shortsighted to blame Obama for all this. This all collapsed before he was even sworn in, but it is more convenient to just blame the sitting President. Just glad that most Americans see though this thinly veiled attempt to gain back the white house. Romney is certainly NOT the answer to this sitation Jeff. He can't wait to do away with the mortgage interest deducion to help finance tax cuts for the wealthy ,but shhhh, don't say anything until after the electon.
The ONLY mortgage deduction I have heard about cutting is the deduction for VACATION HOMES. If you can afford a vacation home, you can afford to pay the taxes.

But I say get rid of ALL deductions! NONE for ANYBODY. Revamp the tax code where EVERYBODY pays taxes!!! And everybody gets 100% of their paycheck. A national sales tax would be a beginning idea. BUT... make a requirement that BOTH houses of Congress, in order to raise that tax, must pass it by a 75% majority.

As a proud American, I am certainly proud to have elected a black man to the highest office in the land. But he didn't get the job done. This particular man is in way over his head.

And he has got to go.

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 14, 2012
 
If the half of America that pays no taxes would step up to the plate, the country's borrowing problem would be solved.

It's time that the '47 percent' pay their fair share. Even a little will help. We all need to kick in before it's too late.

This president was overwhelmed from day one.

Time for a change.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

That is why I advocate the National Sales Tax.

Everybody knows at each step in the process of manufacture, a tax is paid. Many economists and tax experts say that amounts to roughly 20% of the price of finished goods. If that tax were eliminated, and a sales tax of 20% were put in place, EVERYBODY who purcheses NEW goods, would pay their FAIR SHARE of the cost of running the government.

Everybody gets 100% of their paycheck. No deductions.

Food, and used items would be exempt. For example, a used car would not be subject to the tax, nor would pre existing homes.

And again any increase in the tax rate would require a 75% majority in both houses of Congress.

Since: Sep 09

Effort

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 15, 2012
 
Jeff Phillips wrote:
That is why I advocate the National Sales Tax.
Everybody knows at each step in the process of manufacture, a tax is paid. Many economists and tax experts say that amounts to roughly 20% of the price of finished goods. If that tax were eliminated, and a sales tax of 20% were put in place, EVERYBODY who purcheses NEW goods, would pay their FAIR SHARE of the cost of running the government.
Everybody gets 100% of their paycheck. No deductions.
Food, and used items would be exempt. For example, a used car would not be subject to the tax, nor would pre existing homes.
And again any increase in the tax rate would require a 75% majority in both houses of Congress.
I have always said everyone is in the 50% bracket. As far as selling used items, maybe not for much longer without paying the original manufacturer a resellers fee... it's in the courts now.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-t...

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 15, 2012
 
fistv wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always said everyone is in the 50% bracket. As far as selling used items, maybe not for much longer without paying the original manufacturer a resellers fee... it's in the courts now.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-t...
Can you imagine the NIGHTMARE of collection?

A number of years ago I could go into a barber shop and he would have the radio playing, or the ball game was on. You could walk into a shop and there would be music playing.

Well, some lawyer got the bright idea than if somebody is playing a song for "entertainment" (the customers) that store must pay a royalty to the writer of the song. For each song played. Or they had to turn off the music.

A lower court settled it in the stores' favor and the Supremes decided not to hear the case.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••